- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Nice compilation of long term stock return info
Posted on 7/23/10 at 9:09 am
Posted on 7/23/10 at 9:09 am
And, surprise, surprise, valuations matter. Hopefully less experienced investors will read this instead of blindly contributing high percentages of their retirement savings into equities through all market valuations---but who the hell am I kidding thinking people will change and become more informed.
Stocks for the long run
In today's society I don't know many people who will wait 10-years for results, much less 30-40.
Stocks for the long run
quote:
Let's compare returns for the last big market top and bottom. An investor in 1968, a market top, had to wait until 1983, fourteen years to just breakeven after inflation. If they waited until 1987, twenty years, their annual return was 4.19% after inflation, and their compound total return was 489.24%. If they waited until 1992, twenty-five years, their annual return was 5.83%, compounded to1132%. The big bull market ending at an all-time Dow high of 14150 began in 1982 and ended in October 2007 if we consider the 2000-2002 sell-off as a correction. An investor in the market from 1981 through 2000 received a whopping after inflation return of 12.91% annually, and a compound total return of 1741%; it was the best twenty-five years in U.S. market history. Despite a vicious bear market from October 2007 through March 2009, investors are generally optimistic, assuming that the 80% gain in the S&P 500 since the 2009 low is a new bear market (should be "bull")and not a bear market rally. Yet, an investor in Japan at its peak in 1989 still has not recovered to breakeven over 20 years later in 2010 despite one bear market rally of over 100%. Japanese residential real estate and equities are still down around 60-70%. Time of market entry matters yet there's not evidence markets can be timed.
In 1997, Peter L. Bernstein, author of several popular and well-respected books on investing, cautioned investors about employing the long run as a benchmark because the long run is not a homogeneous state of the world, a smooth and straight line into the future. A very large portion of the vaunted equity returns over the riskfree return, the equity risk premium, is accounted for by just 32 years out of 200 years since 1800, 1950-1981. Bonds outperformed stocks 43% of the time, and stocks were superior over the very long run, but with a high degree of uncertainty during periods of time shorter than 150 years. He concludes that, "...the long run can tell us perilously little about what kinds of environments lie ahead...we have to accept uncertainty."
In today's society I don't know many people who will wait 10-years for results, much less 30-40.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 10:15 am to tirebiter
Isn't the whole point of dollar-cost averaging so that you're not constantly trying to time (or value) the market? If you fluctuate the percentage of your retirement contributions based on your perceived valuation of the market, you're in essence trying to time the market, which cannot be done.
What is the alternative to long-run dollar cost averaging? Name another asset that is likely to do better. It's not bonds. As the article states, bonds perform better only 43% of the time.
Also, I'll bet you know more people than you think who are willing to wait 20, 30 or more years for results. Anyone contributing to a 401k in their 20's is accepting that they must wait over 30 years to reap the benefits.
Diversification, dollar-cost averaging, and tax-sheltering is the best playbook for building secure, long-term wealth.
What is the alternative to long-run dollar cost averaging? Name another asset that is likely to do better. It's not bonds. As the article states, bonds perform better only 43% of the time.
Also, I'll bet you know more people than you think who are willing to wait 20, 30 or more years for results. Anyone contributing to a 401k in their 20's is accepting that they must wait over 30 years to reap the benefits.
Diversification, dollar-cost averaging, and tax-sheltering is the best playbook for building secure, long-term wealth.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 10:28 am to tirebiter
quote:
And, surprise, surprise, valuations matter
Sure they do unfortunately...
quote:
Time of market entry matters yet there's not evidence markets can be timed.
Which is why the old adage "Time in the market, not timing the market" is still a fundamental part of a LONG term investors success
quote:
In today's society I don't know many people who will wait 10-years for results, much less 30-40
If they are truly a long term investor I can tell you from first hand experience that they will indeed wait for the results
However to be fair I would bet my house that 95% of the posters on this board wouldnt wait...
Posted on 7/23/10 at 10:55 am to tirebiter
Damn you. Has any one ever told you you're a condescending prick? 
Posted on 7/23/10 at 10:59 am to amsterdam
Different people invest differently, you just need to accept that. You tell people that don't know what they're doing what to do to minimize their risk (and your risk). There's nothing wrong with that, I think its entirely appropriate given the customer's lack of savvy. It doesn't make it the only way of doing it though. You don't need to be a guru or a psychic to understand valuations, you just need to pay attention.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 11:02 am to The_Pistol
quote:
What is the alternative to long-run dollar cost averaging? Name another asset that is likely to do better. It's not bonds. As the article states, bonds perform better only 43% of the time.
This is entirely dependent on the time frame the person picks to make their point. If I pick 80-09 bonds outperformed stocks on absolute return basis, so no, that's not correct. If you're investing mind is set to a single asset, you need to fire your advisor today.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 11:18 am to kfizzle85
quote:
Different people invest differently, you just need to accept that. You tell people that don't know what they're doing what to do to minimize their risk (and your risk). There's nothing wrong with that, I think its entirely appropriate given the customer's lack of savvy. It doesn't make it the only way of doing it though. You don't need to be a guru or a psychic to understand valuations, you just need to pay attention.
You nailed it man. I completely agree with the entire statement. My advice is meant for the long term investor.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 12:22 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
Damn you. Has any one ever told you you're a condescending prick?
At least 25x a week.
I am just naturally sarcastic and have a small streak of pessimism in me from observing individuals and the masses over quite a few years, some things never change, such is the human condition.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 12:41 pm to The_Pistol
quote:
Isn't the whole point of dollar-cost averaging so that you're not constantly trying to time (or value) the market? If you fluctuate the percentage of your retirement contributions based on your perceived valuation of the market, you're in essence trying to time the market, which cannot be done.
What is the alternative to long-run dollar cost averaging? Name another asset that is likely to do better. It's not bonds. As the article states, bonds perform better only 43% of the time.
With a little effort, 401k participants could likely boost their returns substantially over time by spending some time each week on the markets and industry sector performance and applying this info to their investment plan and choices. This obviously assumes a retirement plan has decent choices. I sure wasn't buying growth/tech stocks in my 401k from 1999 on. You don't have to be 100% right or make huge changes, but if markets are grossly overvalued take profit to fixed income and wait to fight another day with better odds on your side. Some people I worked with used momentum, they would pick the highest performing fund in the plan until another fund supplanted it performance-wise and switch to it, typically 3-6 months. I have always been a more value oriented investor, but some of them did quite well.
I am not saying don't DCA, just have never been a proponent of anyone holding 90-100% equity through all market conditions, doesn't matter if you are 25 or 50, I would rather forgo higher risk potential profit and have cash for more lower risk/high return opps down the road.
I am still at 30% equity, and yesterday the portfolio was up over $11k, so I don't have the need or desire to have a high equity allocation. YMMV.
PS - People should not discount this, you never know what lies ahead:
quote:
Bonds outperformed stocks 43% of the time, and stocks were superior over the very long run, but with a high degree of uncertainty during periods of time shorter than 150 years. He concludes that, "...the long run can tell us perilously little about what kinds of environments lie ahead...we have to accept uncertainty."
This post was edited on 7/23/10 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 7/23/10 at 12:57 pm to tirebiter
quote:
if markets are grossly overvalued take profit to fixed income and wait to fight another day with better odds on your side.
That's the funny thing about investing. It's often very difficult to tell when something is overvalued. Even during the height of bubbles, the conventional wisdom will tell you that the valuation is reasonable. Then, the bubble bursts and it's painfully obvious that the conventional wisdom was very wrong (hindsight bias).
If you can predict the peaks and valleys, more power to you. Congrats.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:00 pm to amsterdam
quote:
However to be fair I would bet my house that 95% of the posters on this board wouldnt wait...
true, dat. It's not just this board, everyone wants to be rich yesterday. Then GM wouldn't need a subprime lender to finance vehicles for people who can't afford what they are trying to buy. It's not much different than quarterly earnings expectations, what does that truly matter over the longer term? It wasn't like people waited for BP's earnings call to dump stock after the well blowout.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:18 pm to amsterdam
quote:
My advice is meant for the long term investor.
So is mine, I just would rather watch the market and put in at as close to the optimal times, rather than just blindly DCA in $3000 on the 3rd Monday of every month, but I realize that some (most) people aren't like that. They just shouldn't bitch when they have mediocre returns after buying a stock at a 40x PE.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:19 pm to tirebiter
I was being sarcastic man. Scoop has asked me that multiple times over the past few weeks, so when I see someone else make a post that (IMO) exemplifies the posts he was complaining about, I've been throwing that line out there.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:22 pm to The_Pistol
quote:
That's the funny thing about investing. It's often very difficult to tell when something is overvalued.
I agree, it's not black and white.
quote:
Even during the height of bubbles, the conventional wisdom will tell you that the valuation is reasonable.
Well, I guess that depends on what conventional wisdom is. If you're watching CNBC everyday, then yes, conventional wisdom will always tell you that, and that's why its a terrible channel. If conventional wisdom is doing your own DD, when something gets ridiculously out of whack on a valuation basis, that should tell you its probably overvalued. Emotionally its different, but fundamentally, it can be very clear.
quote:
If you can predict the peaks and valleys, more power to you. Congrats.
You don't have to predict peaks and valleys, you just have to know when the market is overreaching. It doesn't take hindsight bias to confirm that.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:24 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
I was being sarcastic man.
Yes, why else would I put the smiley face after the 25x crack. I was just speaking with a guy a know that sold out of a company he took public and is mega loaded, he said he is all cash, T's and RE and equities can go furck themselves. Damn, we were both dismal on the 5-yr outlook for this country during that conversation.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:30 pm to tirebiter
I need money before I have to really worry about where to put it. 
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:32 pm to tirebiter
quote:
we were both dismal on the 5-yr outlook for this country during that conversation.
All it takes is for the next microsoft to roll around and BOOOOOM!, goes the economic dynamite.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:32 pm to kfizzle85
I did just spend about $130 on stuff for a bbq/tailgate thing for kickball playoffs tomorrow though. Investment or consumption? Debatable IMHO.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:45 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
Investment or consumption?
Reference my signature.
Definitely an investment.
Posted on 7/23/10 at 1:48 pm to TheHiddenFlask
I will get a huge ROE. I employed 100% leverage on it via Capital One, which I will pay back in approximately 38 days to avoid interest charges. Intangible payback period is ~18 hrs though. I win motherfrickers.
Popular
Back to top

4



